No. Worshipping Jesus - and I'm not clear as to what people mean by 'worship' as used here and elsewhere - is perfectly fine; it does not mean they are calling him 'God the Father' or even 'God the Son' - but they believe all the glorious things about Jesus that the scripture teaches, which evokes thanks, and praise and worship. As to 'worship', here is a very concise short essay that addresses the OP directly._________________________________________________________________________________________Quoting Larry Hurtado: "But, whatever the means/process, the key point is that earliest believers seem to have come quickly to the conviction that Jesus had been exalted to a unique heavenly status, had been given to share in the divine name and glory, and must now be reverenced in obedience to God.In short, we have to reckon with two distinguishable convictions: Jesus as Messiah and Jesus as rightful recipient of cultic devotion. Both erupted early, perhaps simultaneously. But resurrection, by itself (i.e., restoration to life and a vindication of Jesus as Messiah), didn’t suffice for the latter conviction or the devotional practice in question. For that, a “glorification” of Jesus seems to me to have been necessary, a glorification understood as by God and requiring that Jesus be reverenced. " -end of Hurtado

- Note that this “mutation” of Jewish monotheism, that is, a change in the core religious practices, specifically in the corporate worship of the earliest Jewish Christians, doesn’t require any change in OT theology. We have the one God, and the human Messiah. And the former raises and exalts the latter, effectively commanding his worship with, but in a way, under himself. Honor given to one raised goes further on, to the raiser.

- Nor does the change Hurtado describes require the speculation that Jesus has a or the “divine nature.” If Hurtado is right, and I think he is, then it is an interesting question how mainstream catholics (or the proto-orthodox) or at least some of their theological elite – got to be so convinced (over the course of the second century) that in the ministry of Jesus there was not only an anointed, empowered, virgin-born man at work (working together with God) but also a man with a “divine nature” in addition to his human nature.

- To make the point more pointedly: it seems that what Hurtado describes is perfectly consistent with unitarian theology (aka belief in a “unipersonal” deity). Indeed, the most famous early modern unitarians, the Socinians, believed in worship of and prayer to the Lord Jesus. Hurtado’s point is compatible both with what I call “humanitarian” unitarianism (Jesus is a man, and doesn’t also have a divine nature) and with what I call “subordinationist” unitarianism, on which Jesus pre-exists his human life, as a divine Logos – and after this Logos becomes a man, then this being has both a divine and human nature. (But this Logos isn’t divine in the same exact way that the Father is; his divinity derives from the Father’s.)

- What this development does require is getting rid of the traditional requirement to only worship YHWH.- Did they think Jesus then was a second god? No, in the monotheistic sense of “God” they still believed in only one God, the one Jesus called “Father,” and affirmed as the only God.- They did think that Jesus was a second “God” – that is, a second being who can be properly addressed as or described as “God” – so long as he’s not confused with YHWH. (Note that Paul is careful not to confuse them – see the start of all his letters.)

- Did they think Jesus was a lesser god? They wouldn’t say that. Being Jewish monotheists, they reserved nearly all god-talk for YHWH, as a way of emphasizing his uniqueness. (See my paper coming out in May in the Journal of Analytic Theology on this rhetoric of monotheism.)But, by some definitions of “god,” yes, we can say that they thought of Jesus as another god, and the second greatest of gods, behind YHWH, who was both a god in the generic sense and also the only GOD in the monotheistic sense.

- This is why 2nd and 3rd c. mainstream Christians – now largely out of the Jewish context – had no scruples about calling Jesus a “second god” (Justin) and saying that though Jesus is called “God,” he’s “different in number” than the one God (Origen), and even, many thought that the monotheistic God was literally older than this newer god (even though the latter existed before creation). (Tertullian) As time went on, with increasing emphasis they applied god-terms to Jesus, even while firmly distinguished him from the one true God. That is basically what all of them (laying aside “monarchians”) did when challenged about their monotheism – emphasized the uniqueness of the Father.

-And also note that this fits well with the total lack of theological agonizing in the NT. No one argues there about redefining God, or including more selves within God, redefining the sense in which God is “one,” or the claim that “God” now refers to a group of deities, or even assertions that Jesus is the ontological equal of the Father. The big disagreements concerned whether Jesus was the Messiah, whether indeed he’d been raised and exalted, and whether or not one could join his ekklesia without firm committing to a Torah-observant, Jewish lifestyle. Like the early Christians, we should say “Yes” to all of those!

- Is this an early “high” christology? If that means a christology on which Jesus must be worshiped yes. But if it means insistence on Jesus having the divine nature, it would seem not. Really, this “high” vs. “low” terminology isn’t all that helpful.

- - Is it consistent with trinitarian theology? It may depend on what that amounts to. But it is inconsistent with this assumption shared by many trinitarians: if any being is properly worshiped, this is solely because of that being’s essential nature. Such would make free divine actions and commands irrelevant to whom we should worship.This is not a recent change, by the way; Dr. Hurtado has been making his point about the early worship of Jesus for some time now. - Dale Tuggy

All things bright and beautiful,All creatures great and small,All things wise and wonderful:The Lord God made them all.

qaz wrote:I know there are some non-trinitarians on this forum. For the non-trinitarians: Do you think it's idolatry to worship Jesus?

Mt 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

So the μαγοι ("magoi" or magicians) worshiped Jesus when he was but a newly-born baby. How often are newly-born babies worshiped? There was something special about THIS baby that evoked worship by the magoi.

Here are five instances recorded in the gospels where people worshiped the adult Jesus, both before and after his resurrection:

(Matthew 14:33) And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”(Matthew 14:33) And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”(Matthew 28:17) And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.(Luke 24:52) And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem.(John 9:38) He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

When you examine these verses in context, you find that in no case did Jesus reject their worship. On the other hand, when Cornelius worshiped Peter, Peter did NOT accept it, on the grounds that he was merely a human being:

(Acts 10: 25,26) When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

Now I believe that from the time Jesus was born until the time of His death, He was fully human. However, Jesus was begotten by God, the first of God's acts, marking the beginning of time. Then "all things were created THROUGH Him" and so He was co-Creator with the Father. When humans beget or give birth to children they are human just as their parents are. Similarly when God begat or gave birth to His Son as His first act, that Son was divine as His Father was—indeed JUST as divine as His Father, though He is NOT the Father, nor part of a divine Trinity. Doubtless you have noticed that I capitalize "He" and "Him" when referring to Jesus. That is the reason—His divinity. As a Person of divine parentage, He is as worthy of worship as His Father. But He is not the Father; He addressed the Father as "The only true God" (John 17:3). He didn't address a Trinity as "the only true God." Yet, He is a divine OTHER who ESSENTIALLY exactly the same as the Father, while POSITIONALLY being secondary to the Father.

(Hebrews 1:3)He [the divine Son] is the radiance of [God's] glory and the exact expression of His essence...

According to Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165], the Son shares the name "Yahweh" with the Father. In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin quotes Genesis 19:24 to prove it:

(Genesis 19:24) Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

The Son of God was the Yahweh who stayed behind to converse with Abraham and was addressed by Abraham as "Yahweh" while the other two angels went ahead to Sodom. Then God, the Yahweh who was in heaven, used His divine Son, as the agent to bring down the sulfur and fire from heaven.

.

Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

qaz wrote:I know there are some non-trinitarians on this forum. For the non-trinitarians: Do you think it's idolatry to worship Jesus? Do you think the trinity is idolatry?

I'm kind of in Dave's camp as far as the trinity, but my thinking is that Jesus himself tells us that he was sent to bring God's people back to him. Jesus reconciled Israel to the Father. Worshiping Jesus, at least to me, would not be Idolatry but would be counter intuitive to what Jesus himself came to do ... to draw his people to the father. Once again, I would have to throw out the caveat that IMHO Jesus came for a specific reason for a specific people.

From my view (once again beating a dead hoarse) Jesus accomplished his atonement for Israel, and we are reading history. qaz for you this part of it should be academic if you are a full preterist.

The church insisted to control the masses, and this has had an insidious affect on people from the early times.

Many Jews would argue that it is. The OT says some interesting things regarding Christ. Both Jews and Christians interpret them differently. I actually don't think Jesus sought or seeks the worship of anyone. I believe his character to be far higher than that of a common celebrity or king.

Gabe Grinstead wrote:Many Jews would argue that it is. The OT says some interesting things regarding Christ. Both Jews and Christians interpret them differently. I actually don't think Jesus sought or seeks the worship of anyone. I believe his character to be far higher than that of a common celebrity or king.

Indeed Gabe, the Orthodox Jewish belief is that it's idolatry to believe in Jesus's divinity. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the Trinity. I believe Jesus is the messiah, but whether or not he's God, I'm not sure. I was raised trinitarian, but have been questioning it. Where do you stand on the Trinity and Jesus's divinity?

That is the reason—His divinity. As a Person of divine parentage, He is as worthy of worship as His Father. But He is not the Father; He addressed the Father as "The only true God" (John 17:3). He didn't address a Trinity as "the only true God." Yet, He is a divine OTHER who ESSENTIALLY exactly the same as the Father, while POSITIONALLY being secondary to the Father.

Sure just as Stephen said "Lord Jesus receive my spirit" but that's when we have a specific message meant for Jesus, but otherwise i think we should pray to the Father. A few days ago i heard a lady pray to "The Virgin Mary" to heal someone and i know Mary can't heal anyone but the thought is that Mary will talk to Jesus and Jesus will talk to his Father. Of course in Hebrews it tells us to march boldly into the throne room of God.

Qaz - that's why I stated above that I"m not clear on what different people MEAN when they use the word 'worship". It's not clear.

Here is a partial answer, with a link to the fuller essay:"In short, the Lamb (Jesus) is worshiped because of his unique service to God. There is not any confused and confusing statement here about Jesus being ” worshiped as God.” No, the monotheism has been carefully left intact, even though the man Jesus here has been exalted to the highest possible place under God himself, and is as it were worshiped alongside him. Yes, it is remarkable that anyone should be worshiped alongside God. And yet, we already know why God is being worshiped, and it is a more foundational or fundamental reason than the reason for worship of Jesus. Jesus, having fulfilled his divine commission, has now been exalted, and this is why he must be worshiped, to the glory of the God who sent, empowered, raised, and exalted him. God’s sponsoring agency is assumed here in the background, when the Lamb suddenly appears in the throne room. This has all been the working out of God’s plan, so this amazing exaltation must be understood as God’s will."

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:3

Jesus was not created, but Creator. I like to think this was why he chose to visit as a human carpenter (or builder):

As a young man marries a young woman, so will your Builder marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you. Isaiah 62:5.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are an eternal team. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17:1, we read, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.” In John 16:14, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit “will glorify me.” So, the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Son.

"The Trinity is unending, joyous dance, yet the miracle is that the circle breaks open, and the Son and Spirit, still holding hands with the Father, extend their other hands to us, inviting us into the circle, drawing us into the dance, that we may become their partners, participants in their life." (Author unknown.)

Paidion wrote:....God, the Yahweh who was in heaven, used His divine Son, as the agent to bring down the sulfur and fire from heaven.

I must disagree. The unchanging Jesus, like his Father, and his Spirit, is only about abundant life. God tries to warn, protect, and rescue. He is, by nature, a Savior. He is not bipolar: both self-sacrificial fireman and arsonist. He is unipolar: love.

At the end of the day, the Scriptures are only part of a progressive revelation, reflective of the human mediators’ growing understanding of God’s goodness. They point us as best they can to Jesus, our risen Savior, who points us to his Father, by his Spirit of Truth.

qaz wrote:Davo, I know you're not trinitarian. Do you think "orthodox" Christianity is idolatry?

davo wrote:No not really.

qaz wrote:

davo wrote:No not really.

How can you not think it's idolatry if it means treating someone as God who is not (in your belief) God?

Well, only in terms of looking at the big picture. It is commonplace for both monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam to view “orthodox” Christianity as idolatry, but for me, given I was brought up in a branch of it (evangelical), your assertion would be simple hyperbolic overstatement. Is there plenty I no longer view as right about my former evangelicalism, sure, but I can live with the anomalies without needing to go to what I would see as unnecessary extremes in terms of labelling such as idolatrous etc.

So for me there is no cognitive dissonance simply because my worldview is a journey rather than a destination so I view change as discovery not a threat to that which has gone before, i.e., sometimes ‘sacred cows’ ACTUALLY DO need slaughtering, IMO.

And all that to boot… I think DaveB’s quote above is fully plausible.

“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”

davo wrote:Well, only in terms of looking at the big picture. It is commonplace for both monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam to view “orthodox” Christianity as idolatry, but for me, given I was brought up in a branch of it (evangelical), your assertion would be simple hyperbolic overstatement. Is there plenty I no longer view as right about my former evangelicalism, sure, but I can live with the anomalies without needing to go to what I would see as unnecessary extremes in terms of labelling such as idolatrous etc.

So for me there is no cognitive dissonance simply because my worldview is a journey rather than a destination so I view change as discovery not a threat to that which has gone before, i.e., sometimes ‘sacred cows’ ACTUALLY DO need slaughtering, IMO.

And all that to boot… I think DaveB’s quote above is fully plausible.

See, I worry that if Jesus is not God, and I believe that Jesus is, God is angry at me for idolatry. (Likewise, I worry that if Jesus is God, he'll be mad at me if I do not think he is God).

qaz wrote:See, I worry that if Jesus is not God, and I believe that Jesus is, God is angry at me for idolatry. (Likewise, I worry that if Jesus is God, he'll be mad at me if I do not think he is God).

Ok… so what tangible evidence do you have, i.e., what unpleasant, unhappy or disciplinary experience can you point to in your life that indicates to you that God or Jesus has been mad at you? IOW, what is this belief of yours based on?

“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”